Thomas Jefferson is the most highly admired of America's founders by
lovers of liberty, and with good reason. The Constitutional Thought of
Thomas Jefferson gives considerable insight into his views, and helps
to illustrate the vast gulf between his vision of a free society and
the Leviathan government which we have today. This is no dry treatment
of ideas from a past era; it shows Jefferson struggling to reconcile
opponents, to apply principles to difficult situations as an advocate
of independence and later as Secretary of State and as President. It is
a portrait in ideas of a man to be admired.

Mayer starts with the roots of Jefferson's ideas, which he sees as
grounded in the "Whig Interpretation" of English history. Jefferson
studied Edward Coke's commentaries, which upheld a construction of the
Magna Carta that would prohibit legal monopolies and compulsory foreign
military service. Locke and Algernon Sidney are mentioned among the
better-remembered authors who influenced his thinking.

As Mayer observes, Jefferson was not a philosophical system-builder.
When he wrote in the Declaration of Independence that human rights are
"self-evident," he meant it literally; he held that the evidence of
rights "is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of
reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man." This reliance on
intuition has proven to be a critical weakness in Jefferson's defense
of liberty, since it leaves his basic principles unvalidated. But he
was highly consistent in his development of a system of government from
those principles.

More than most of the founders, Jefferson trusted in popular
sovereignty. He regarded the people as the ultimate defenders of
liberty. Distrust of power, especially power concentrated in a central
government, was central to his political views. He held "jealousy"
rather than "confidence" in government to be the proper attitude --
jealousy being understood not in the modern sense of envy, but in the
sense of distrust and vigilance. Like Lord Acton, he believed that
power corrupts. But he failed to realize that "[p]ower corrupts those
who hold it -- the people as well as the governors." Thus, he did not
anticipate that people would vote their liberties away wholesale in
order to get privileges or loot. Madison and other founders were more
aware of this danger.

Among the constitutional measures which he supported in order to avoid
concentration of power were federalism and the separation of powers. He
saw the federal government as a strictly limited one, primarily
concerned with international relations and leaving internal matters in
the hands of the states. He stressed the first word of the phrase
"necessary and proper" in the Constitution, arguing that the clause
authorizes only what is in strictest fact necessary to the
implementation of the government's powers. "To take a single step
beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of
Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no
longer susceptible of any definition."

However, Jefferson also distrusted the power of the judiciary, and
strenuously opposed the idea that the judicial branch should be the
final arbiter of the Constitution. Mayer sees Jefferson's views in this
area as being colored by his conflict with the extreme judicial
activism of John Marshall, but also as grounded in the principle of
federalism. He envisioned an active role for the states in opposing
unconstitutional federal actions, as is shown by his role in drafting
the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in opposition to the Alien and
Sedition Acts. Mayer says that "Marshall perceived the Supreme Court as
a kind of 'guardian of the republic,'" while Jefferson "suspected that
such an assumption -- that the Supreme Court knew what was right for
the nation -- came too perilously close to 'playing God.'" Whether the
Supreme Court has enabled the federal government's vast usurpations of
power or has kept them from being even worse is still an open question
today.

Jefferson was also a strong advocate of Presidential term limits, and
saw their lack as a serious weakness in the Constitution. However, most
people saw the precedent which Washington set of a voluntary two-term
limit as adequate; and Jefferson "concluded that amendment of the
Constitution to correct this flaw would have to wait until 'inferior
characters' succeeded Washington in that high office and 'awakened us
to the danger which his [Washington's] merit has led us into." This
finally did happen, a century and a half later.

The chapter on "The Presidency and Executive Power" is one of the most
fascinating in the book, because it shows how Jefferson had to deal
with concrete issues when holding the country's highest office. Mayer
defends Jefferson on most counts, perhaps even bending over backwards
to some extent. Certainly compared to George Bush or Bill Clinton,
Jefferson is a giant next to two fleas. He notes that the
Constitutional issues raised concerning the Louisiana Purchase -- often
cited as a case of Jefferson ignoring his own principles -- were raised
largely because of Jefferson's own scruples about strict construction.
He expressed a preference for having a Constitutional amendment to
authorize the acquisition of new land for the United States, but
finally recognized that this was an impractical course.

The conflict between Jefferson and Hamilton is legendary. Mayer, as is
appropriate for a book of this type, does not get into its personal
dimensions, but treats it as a conflict of ideas; this does not make
the treatment any the less fascinating. The opposition between the two
men, one an advocate of monarchy and growing government power and
spending, the other an advocate of liberty, economy, and strictly
limited power, is certainly the stuff of great drama. Mayer quotes
extensively from the "Anas," which contains some of Jefferson's most
passionate writing. In the short run, Jefferson triumphed in 1800,
sweeping out oppressive legislation and reducing the national debt. In
the long run, though, Hamilton has proven the winner; it is his
philosophy, not Jefferson's, which dominates American politics today.

This leaves us with the question: Is it possible for us today to
reclaim Jefferson's legacy? In the last chapter Mayer provides us with
a quote from Jefferson which offers us perspective: "The ground of
liberty is to be gained by inches; we must be contented to secure what
we can get from time to time, and eternally press forward for what is
yet to get." No matter how much liberty we have lost, it is still
possible to do this. The Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson
provides one bit of this progress by making Jefferson's views on
liberty clear and pointing out where he fell short. Perhaps one day, if
lovers of liberty are persistent enough, Jefferson's principles will
prevail and we will once again have the freedom which he helped our
ancestors to win.